/m/otp

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Improperly OT but I don't think there's enough interest for an MMA thread so I guess it goes here.

I doubt I'm alone in being happy to see Anderson Silva's in-fight clowning get rather spectacularly punished. For those who didn't catch it, he was holding his hands low and daring Chris Weidman to hit him. Weidman caught him with a clean left (after missing several times) and then knocked him out with a right.

I doubt I'm alone in being happy to see Anderson Silva's in-fight clowning get rather spectacularly punished. For those who didn't catch it, he was holding his hands low and daring Chris Weidman to hit him. Weidman caught him with a clean left (after missing several times) and then knocked him out with a right.

no, you are definitely not alone there. but even if you weren't happy about it, i do think everyone who follows MMA is breathing a huge sigh of relief that it wasn't sonnen who did it.

I'm very disappointed in Anderson's performance. If he wants to clown around he should bring back his PRIDE-era Michael Jackson impersonation and dance to the ring again. I miss that, the dude has moves.

Yes, he was. If you're being followed, lose the guy, then go back looking for him, and throw a punch (without him hitting you first), you're 100% wrong. It's assault and battery at the very least.

Under your "doctrine" of self-defense, every time a crazy/scary homeless guy or street hustler accosts me for money, I can beat the #### out of him. Or, I can walk a few blocks, then decide to go back and beat the #### out of him. It's quite insane.

Yes, he was. If you're being followed, lose the guy, then go back looking for him, and throw a punch (without him hitting you first), you're 100% wrong. It's assault and battery at the very least.

Of course, you're just making up that entire narrative. (Or more clearly, you're just repeating the made-up narrative Clapper has been pushing to sow "what if" seeds of doubt in otherwise right thinking people's minds about this event.)

You don't know that Martin "lost the guy." You don't know Martin "went back looking for him." You sure as #### don't know he "threw a punch." All you know is that there was a fight, some witnesses suggest that Martin was winning, and the Zimmerman shot Martin dead through the heart. Everything else is hearsay and guessitimates by people intent on having Zimmerman walk. The entire "Martin had to have doubled back" narrative is nothing more than Zimmerman flunkies making up stories (without evidence) to support their need to get the shooter off on a technicality.

And 799 is correct from the legal point. Nothing I've seen tells me that Zimmerman was in mortal danger, but in a world where Rodney Peairs walks (and yes I know about the civil suit), well the chance of that mattering seems slight.

Ron, the word "mortal" is an overbid, as that is not the standard. Quoting from the statute:

[A] person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

One can certainly suffer great bodily harm in a fistfight, especially if one is outclassed. I truly don't see the hangup here.

#807 ignores the time line established by the police call tape. We know Martin had time to be much further away from Zimmerman's truck, and we know Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, unless you believe Zimmerman was inventing things on the fly while talking with the dispatcher - things that just happened to match the evidence and testimony. Due to his advocacy for Lynch Mob Justice, I think we have to discount just about everything Sam says about this case. He just can't be trusted.

On my point in 808, the recent Ausar Walcott case is perhaps instructive on the point of how one can suffer great bodily harm in a fistfight:

Cleveland Browns rookie linebacker Ausar Walcott was arrested Tuesday and charged with attempted murder for allegedly punching a man outside a club in Northern New Jersey.

Authorities told The Bergen Record that Walcott punched Derrick Jones in the head just after The Palace Gentlemen's Club closed early Sunday morning.

Police say Jones, who is from New York City, is in critical condition. Walcott, 23, is held on $500,000 bail. He is charged with first-degree attempted murder, second-degree aggravated assault and third-degree endangering an injured victim, said Salvatore Bellomo, a senior assistant prosecutor.

We know that Zimmerman was being hit, and hit hard, and that Martin had the upper hand and was on top of him.

Of course, you're just making up that entire narrative. (Or more clearly, you're just repeating the made-up narrative Clapper has been pushing to sow "what if" seeds of doubt in otherwise right thinking people's minds about this event.)

You don't know that Martin "lost the guy." You don't know Martin "went back looking for him." You sure as #### don't know he "threw a punch." All you know is that there was a fight, some witnesses suggest that Martin was winning, and the Zimmerman shot Martin dead through the heart. Everything else is hearsay and guessitimates by people intent on having Zimmerman walk. The entire "Martin had to have doubled back" narrative is nothing more than Zimmerman flunkies making up stories (without evidence) to support their need to get the shooter off on a technicality.

My statement clearly stated "if he did that". It's a hypothetical. You responded to my hypothetical, and your response was wrong.

None of us know for sure what exactly transpired. Even Zimmerman probably doesn't know how the confrontation exactly occurred.

#807 ignores the time line established by the police call tape. We know Martin had time to be much further away from Zimmerman's truck, and we know Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, unless you believe Zimmerman was inventing things on the fly while talking with the dispatcher - things that just happened to match the evidence and testimony.

No. We "know" that Martin "ran", that Zimmerman got out of his truck and followed him. The idea that Martin "had time to be much further away" is nothing but you spinning a tall tale in order to make your preferred "get out of jail free" case for Zimmerman. The walkway in question led directly to Martin's home. There's no reason to think Martin would lead the creepy stalking guy to his house. There's no reason to think Martin did anything aside from go around the corner, where Zimmerman followed him, and then turn when followed and ask the creepy stalking guy what the problem was.

You're spinning storytime because you want Zimmerman to get away with murder.

There's no reason to think Martin would lead the creepy stalking guy to his house.

Yes there is. An obvious reaction would be to run home, lock the doors and call the police. If I thought a creepy guy was following me, I'd head straight home, unless the police station was closer.

Not to mention, with Martin's speed advantage, he could likely lose Zimmerman, and Zimmerman wouldn't even know which was his house.

No. We "know" that Martin "ran", that Zimmerman got out of his truck and followed him. The idea that Martin "had time to be much further away" is nothing but you spinning a tall tale in order to make your preferred "get out of jail free" case for Zimmerman.

If Martin ran, and Zimmerman didn't run, how would they ever meet up again if Martin didn't double back? Especially given Martin's speed advantage. Once Martin and Zimmerman were out of sight of each other, Martin had zero reason not to run home and call the cops.

All you know is that there was a fight, some witnesses suggest that Martin was winning, and the Zimmerman shot Martin dead through the heart.

A weird part of this whole argument is that even according to this description of what we know from the greatest Zimmerman-hater, he still legally should be found not guilty.

And as for the follow up in #812, of course we do know much more - we have a decent timeline due to the plethora of recorded calls. There were several minutes between Zimmerman getting out of his truck, and the final confrontation which occurred at most 150 feet away from the truck. Even a very slow walk covers more than 150 ft/min. There are several scenarios that are consistent with this (maybe Martin got lost or panicked) but the idea that Martin walked (even slowly) towards his house and Zimmerman ran him down is not one of them. The scenario described in #812 would have led to the confrontation occurring during Zimmerman's conversation with the dispatcher.

You're new to the thread, so let me say this for the 5002'nd time; I don't give a #### about Floridian legal technicalities. George Zimmerman is a murderer.

Sam, I've long ago lost what your position is based on. You say not Florida law, but you've been unable to articulate how this case would turn out any differently in any other US jurisdiction. Is your view of this based on a layman or English definition of the word "murder?" Because that doesn't seem to fit either. Here's the first definition that came up in Bing:

Definition of murder (n)
Bing Dictionary
mur·der
[ múrd?r ]
1.crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law

I don't give a #### about Floridian legal technicalities. George Zimmerman is a murderer.

By "Florida legal technicaities" do you mean the black letter self-defense law in 50 U.S. states and all other jurisdictions, as well as common law?

Would you like to supply us one actual statute from somewhere on planet earth that matches your definition of self-defense? i.e. Martin had the right to beat Zimmerman for following him, but Zimmerman had no right to shoot Martin for beating the crap out of him.

Would you like to supply us one actual statute from somewhere on planet earth that matches your definition of self-defense?

Why would I do that? I have clearly stated my position with regard to the law.

Martin had the right to beat Zimmerman for following him, but Zimmerman had no right to shoot Martin for beating the crap out of him.

More or less precisely the case, yes. George Zimmerman went looking for a fight. Trayvon Martin provided him one. If you go looking for a fight and then end up on the wrong end of the ass-kicking, you don't get to shoot the guy dead for being better than you. If Zimmerman didn't want his ass kicked, he shouldn't have gone looking for a fight.

True, but why would anyone give any weight to the opinion of one who boasts that the law is of no concern, that he is not bound by "legalities", due process and evidence - while advocating for vigilante justice in which he is judge, jury and executioner? Sam's own words disqualify him from anything but troll status.

True, but why would anyone give any weight to the opinion of one who boasts that the law is of no concern, that he is not bound by "legalities", due process and evidence - while advocating for vigilante justice in which he is judge, jury and executioner?

Seems to me we're back around to the reasonable view that Zimmerman is reprehensible for wandering around like a cowboy and killing somebody in the process, and not guilty of murder. No real contradiction there. Other people have seen their lives disintegrate and become bywords for malicious stupidity, or worse, while still being acquitted of murder.

Serious question: So I'm watching Kids in the Hall, and I'm watching Mark Mckinneys' 'Missisippi Gary' character and I was wondering what makes blackface offensive, but cross-dressing humor isn't? It's based on the same premise. Acting stereotypes for humor,yes?

Serious question: So I'm watching Kids in the Hall, and I'm watching Mark Mckinneys' 'Missisippi Gary' character and I was wondering what makes blackface offensive, but cross-dressing humor isn't? It's based on the same premise. Acting stereotypes for humor,yes?

Two things. First, a large part of what makes blackface offensive is the tradition of minstrel shows, which were CRAZY racist. There's no equivalent of that for cross-dressing.

Second, when the Kids in the Hall dressed as women, they usually weren't doing it to exaggerate stereotypes. Dave Foley's just playing a woman, not exaggerating stereotypes of women for sexist laffs.

So yes, Mississippi Gary is regrettable in a way that his ex-girlfriend Kathie-with-a-K is not. Note that the Kids even addressed this in the scene where Mark McKinney breaks character as Mississippi Gary.

1. I applaud Monty for having all the details of the KITH skits. Bravo.

2. I wasn't specifically addressing Kids in the Hall, I mean there's thousands of years here...but, I think your overall point of 100 years of concentrated 'crazy racism' outweighing 1000's of years of light sexism is still relevant. Thanks.

On a slightly different note, I think context is king. Let's look at different cases here.

1. Mississippi Gary: Maybe slightly regrettable, still funny. But only regrettable because I think it could have been done without the blackface and not have changed hardly anything.

2. Dan Ackroyd in Trading Places. I don't cringe in the slightest. I don't think of cringing. Probably because the scene and the film are so damn funny.

3. Gene Wilder in Silver Streak. No cringing because the point is Wilder is hopelessly inept at being a black man.

4. Soul Man. Good God just thinking of that film makes my skin crawl off. Probably because it's a whole film and not just a scene or sketch. Also it's pretty bad from what I recall.

Sam, I've long ago lost what your position is based on. You say not Florida law, but you've been unable to articulate how this case would turn out any differently in any other US jurisdiction. Is your view of this based on a layman or English definition of the word "murder?" Because that doesn't seem to fit either. Here's the first definition that came up in Bing:

Sam knows full well there's no obscure Florida technicality involved. He simply doesn't care about honesty.

#808 Not an accidental one either. I'm aware as to what the law is. And I'm aware that Zimmerman was most likely getting his ass kicked.

As I'm pretty sure I've said at some point in one of these threads I'd be happier if self-defense was an affirmative defense with a duty to establish that deadly force was necessary considering the actual danger. But I also know that regardless of how the law is written, "I was very scared" is likely to prove an effective defense in practice.

As I'm pretty sure I've said at some point in one of these threads I'd be happier if self-defense was an affirmative defense with a duty to establish that deadly force was necessary considering the actual danger.

But that standard eliminates good faith self-defense and good faith defense-of-others. It would lead the cop to have to verify that the bank robber's gun is real before using deadly force, leading to either the cop either putting himself at a risk of a murder or a manslaughter charge in any defense-of-others situation that involves a weapon or waiting for the robber to shoot a teller or one of the customers.

Dale, I'd also note that drag is more about making men feel good than women feel bad. You can like or hate cross-dressing, but some people like it very much, and there are whole ranges of it where "sexist" is beside the point, except perhaps that we inhabit a world where there are gender roles and people dress according to sex, and there are lots of permutations of how they conform to or play with those roles.

In the British drag comedy tradition, from Monty Python to The League of Gentlemen and 100 other examples before after and in between, the comedians are making fun of everybody, and sexism is hardly the point, because they also dress up as idiotic men all the time too.

Dos Santos Abreu is believed to have struck the referee after questioning a decision. In retaliation, Jordao da Silva stabbed the player.

Having witnessed the incident, an outraged group of spectators turned on the referee. He was tied up, beaten, stoned and quartered. They then put his head on a stake and planted it in the middle of the pitch.

Yes, I know you know the law, and I should have said so, but I just wanted to quote it again in light of your "mortal" language.

And I'm aware that Zimmerman was most likely getting his ass kicked.

As I'm pretty sure I've said at some point in one of these threads I'd be happier if self-defense was an affirmative defense with a duty to establish that deadly force was necessary considering the actual danger. But I also know that regardless of how the law is written, "I was very scared" is likely to prove an effective defense in practice.

It sounds like you're advocating a sort of hindsight analysis, which really is far too stringent a standard to be of much use. The "reasonable belief" standard in contrast is an analysis that examines how things looked to the person at the time, and it has the safeguard that a merely "honest" belief isn't enough but a "reasonable" belief is needed as well.

With your hindsight-type analysis a 120 pound male could walk up to you with a toy gun, inform you that he is about to shoot you dead, and then when you crack his skull with your elbow you'd be strung up on murder charges, because you were "actually" in very little danger. This type of self defense law would quickly lead to chaos.

Dos Santos Abreu is believed to have struck the referee after questioning a decision. In retaliation, Jordao da Silva stabbed the player.

Having witnessed the incident, an outraged group of spectators turned on the referee. He was tied up, beaten, stoned and quartered. They then put his head on a stake and planted it in the middle of the pitch.

But the player struck the referee first! Clearly the referee was totally justified in stabbing him to death! How could the mob not see that?!

#830 Your specific examples don't particularly trouble me. I mean regardless of how the law is written, "I saw a gun" is always going to be an effective defense. Even if it turns out to be a replica. "I saw a gun but it turned out to be a cell phone" not so much.

I mean regardless of how the law is written, "I saw a gun" is always going to be an effective defense.

I think it's a really, really, horrid idea to write legislation with the hope that juries will simply ignore it. I don't believe the English language has an adjective accurately expressing how terrible an idea it is to fundamentally undermine the basic pillar of our justice system. You're creating a situation in which, for example, a woman being raped now is legally incentivized to lie there and take it due to the risk of being on trial for murder.

Wait a minute. Why is Zimmerman's "policing" of the neighborhood so reprehensible, much less morally repugnant? Unless you judge Zimmerman's as an unofficial neighborhood watchguiy strictly from an after the fact perspective, that is. And logic and law says you can't just do that. Otherwise, exactly what is there to condemn, and to condemn so righteously? There are people "policing" their neighborhoods all the time in this country (in this world), formally and informally. They ask strangers what they are doing there in their neighborhood. Often, they are to be commended for doing this. Why would someone think that merely doing that makes that person strictly or absolutely liable and accountable for anything that might follow from that action that is allowable under law? Doing what Zimmerman was doing before the fight is in and of itself not a justification for the focus of this allowable behavior to go batshit violent (and I speak here generally, not with reference to Martin-wrt him, that is what the trial will specifically decide). In merely riding the neigborhood range and reporting it to the police, Zimmerman is not doing anything illegal or otherwise engaging in immoral behavior,.

Wait a minute. Why is Zimmerman's "policing" of the neighborhood so reprehensible, much less morally repugnant?

Good question. It might have been ill advised or even stupid (depending on what he did once he left the car), but unless he struck the first blow, or taunted Martin viciously to get a physical response, I don't see how it is immoral or reprehensible.

I think the big issue is Zimmerman was policing the neighborhood with a gun. It's one thing to be looking out over your neighborhood, it's another thing to be playing amateur cop. Whether Zimmerman was out looking for confrontation is difficult to say, but it's certainly on the table.

Well, as to the first part of your statement, that, too, is allowable. As to the second part, he can do that, too. Whether he exceeded what's allowable is part of what the jury will decide. You can't start lay culpability on him at the point where he is only doing what the law allows him to do. If he's culpable, it comes after that. Yet, people harp on his being a watchguy with a gun as if that in and of inself makes him guilty. He (and anyone) still can ride that neighborhood range--and with a gun, and many other jurisdictions say the same.

I think the big issue is Zimmerman was policing the neighborhood with a gun. It's one thing to be looking out over your neighborhood, it's another thing to be playing amateur cop.

The gun doesn't help his cause. The real issue though is that he has no formal training for dealing with situations should they escalate, and he is running around after people of which he has no reason to believe are guilty of anything, other than the profiling he is performing in his mind. Under no reasonable definition does that fit the term "policing".

Nor being trained to handle confrontations, and going around performing actions that are likely to cause confrontations, is a terrible combination. It's reckless and dangerous. It's my belief that any just law should reflect that dangerous and/or reckless behavior, which ends up leaving another person dead, should be at minimum manslaughter.

Well, as to the first part of your statement, that, too, is allowable. As to the second part, he can do that, too. Whether he exceeded what's allowable is part of what the jury will decide. You can't start lay culpability on him at the point where he is only doing what the law allows him to do

There are many things that are perfectly legal on their own, but will result in a manslaughter charge, if somebody ends up dead.

Seems to me we're back around to the reasonable view that Zimmerman is reprehensible for wandering around like a cowboy and killing somebody in the process, and not guilty of murder.

This is a pretty fair summary of my position.

In the weeks and weeks of the Zimmerman topic Ray has been the main voice of reason throughout. After reading through pretty much everything, this more or less summarizes what I've gotten out of the lengthy discussion.

The strawman is: "Yet, people harp on his being a watchguy with a gun as if that in and of inself makes him guilty.", and pretending that's all he did, beyond being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

They ask strangers what they are doing there in their neighborhood. Often, they are to be commended for doing this.

Are they? I don't know...maybe I've been lucky in that I've lived in nice neighourhoods (though to be honest I haven't really), but I can't think of any scenario in which I'd be happy that some dude is walking around my neighbourhood asking people what they are doing there, or if they belong.

Also, I would also like to express my appreciation for the precise Kids in the Hall discussion. It's not what the original topic was, but I find the Kids in the Hall depiction of women to be great because for the most part it is just men playing women, rather than some caricature (in terms of a caricature of women...pretty much all Kids in the Hall characters are exaggerated for comedic effect, but you know what I mean).

EDIT: My main complaint with Mississippi Gary is that it's not a particularly funny sketch. I say this is a pretty huge Kids in the Hall fan, so I set the bar pretty high for what's funny in their catalogue.

No, Zimmerman is not guilty and not otherwise morally reprehensible unless at that precise juncture where he has to be found to have acted in self-defense, he is instead at that point and place found not to have acted in self-defense. It's not about greater philosophy and it's not about general character--or, rather, it shouldn't be. It's about specific actions that can be pointed to that amount to culpability as defined in law. And the neighbor watch and the mere carrying of the gun is not where the question to be answer arises.

The strawman is: "Yet, people harp on his being a watchguy with a gun as if that in and of inself makes him guilty.", and pretending that's all he did, beyond being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That's not all he did. You're right, and I never pretended otherwise. And if he's guilty, it's because of some of that other stuff. I took pains to make that distinction. Take some pains to note it. You need to read what I actually wrote. I addressed people's view as to his neigborhood watching. That's all. Try to understand that.

Speaking of great sketch comedy, the Monty Python bit about an alien race of blancmanges turning everyone into Scotsmen (who have a racial inability to play tennis) in order to ensure they won Wimbledon, has clearly backfired.

The 3rd Amendment case will likely be buried due to some overly pedantic reading of "housing" or whatnot. In the meantime everyone will ignore completely the fact that if the police can shoot you, arrest you and confiscate your house for "tactical advantages" in a bust of your neighbors the 3rd Amendment is completely ####### meaningless.

Are they? I don't know...maybe I've been lucky in that I've lived in nice neighourhoods (though to be honest I haven't really), but I can't think of any scenario in which I'd be happy that some dude is walking around my neighbourhood asking people what they are doing there, or if they belong.

Kind of tough to have a neighborhood watch organization if strangers wandering around the streets in the community are ignored.

Individuals acting on their own, or in voluntary association with their neighbors, to protect themselves and their property, is pretty much the antithesis of a police state. Despots never give citizens that kind of power or those kinds of rights.

I think the big issue is Zimmerman was policing the neighborhood with a gun. It's one thing to be looking out over your neighborhood, it's another thing to be playing amateur cop.

I'm not even so sure that "looking over your neighborhood" is a net positive. But, well, maybe.

Certainly not the way the Zimmeister was doing it. (IE being woefully unprepared, not following protocol, not being able to handle himself in a fight, etc etc.)

Whether Zimmerman was out looking for confrontation is difficult to say, but it's certainly on the table.

Doubtful that he would call 911 and report them as to his whereabouts and to send a cruiser if he was out "looking for confrontation," but I do think that he knew confrontation could well result and that his dance partner wouldn't know he had a gun. That's a major problem. Assuming Martin doubled back to confront Zimmerman, would Martin have done that had he known Zimmerman had a gun?

Doubtful that he would call 911 and report them as to his whereabouts and to send a cruiser if he was out "looking for confrontation," but I do think that he knew confrontation could well result and that his dance partner wouldn't know he had a gun. That's a major problem. Assuming Martin doubled back to confront Zimmerman, would Martin have done that had he known Zimmerman had a gun?

If Zimmerman wasn't looking for a confrontation, and didn't provoke one, I don't see him being armed as a problem. He had no way of knowing that a burglar or mugger wouldn't have a knife, or a gun, or other weapon.

Years ago, our neighbors' teenage daughter came over and said she thought there was a burglar in her house, and asked if I could call the cops, and come wait outside with her for them to come. You can be damn sure I had my pistol on me while we waited in her driveway.

That would be consistent with Sam's theory of crime. If simply following someone is the start of a the physical confrontation that the follower initiated, certainly being drunk and wearing a low-cut dress is the starts of the sexual confrontation and the woman is the initiator. That woman, after all, has no right to defend herself and certainly no right to expect help from a "neo-fascist police force" either. And if it's a black-on-white offense, no doubt Sam thinks it's part of social justice and if the woman didn't want to be raped, she shouldn't have voted for Reagan when she was younger.

It certainly seems that you enjoy falsely accusing me of certain behaviors because you're so fond of them yourself. I suspect this is because you have difficulty actually thinking through positions, relying solely on blind, near religious "instinct" to drive your positions instead.

So, take your pick: is doing that a) criminal or b) morally repugnant?

It's negligence. It's wanton disregard for human life. He's a neighborhood watch guy. Fan-Tastic. See suspicious person, call police, go back inside and have a brewski. Not run around following a dude, acting confrontational and getting into a fist fight that winds up in someone getting shot. He needs to deter an attacker? Carry pepper spray, or a taser (not sure if they're legal in florida) or a truncheon.

I dismiss the "weaker party needs a bigger weapon argument". If you can't handle yourself in a confrontation with non-lethal force at your command, maybe skip the the neighborhood watch interventionist plan, huh? A little old lady who might need a gun in a fist fight knows to not chase after people in the dark.

I am no gun control freak, but I do believe in gun owners being responsible for the bullets they spray around. Even in "self defense". Even in their own homes. If you need a gun for a deterrent or whatever, fire a shot into the ground or something.

What we need is a new law making it illegal to watch suspicious people in the neighborhood.

What a wonderful world it will be then.

As I somewhat initiated this subthread with my musing that I wouldn't want some dude patrolling my neighbourhood looking for "suspicious" characters, I should just say that I wouldn't advocate a law against it. Just that if it was my neighbourhood I'd be more worried about the guy walking around thinking he was some kind of sheriff than potential burglars. Perhaps that's just me, but oh well. And if I met someone at a party who claimed to do such things it would be a data-point against him being someone I'd want to hang out with. See comment 856 for my take on this particular Zimmerman case.

What if this had been a case where the watcher's concerns had turned out to be warranted? That happens, too, you know. Sometimes the stranger is up to no good. Would that have made a difference in the way you view the watcher's activities? How do you know ahead of time? You have to check and you have to ask.

Why do tribal peoples post guards at night? Why are they so quick to see strangers as out to do them, even as supernatural aliens? (See the Edge’s videos on what Napoleon Chagnon’s been doing all these years, and what he has to say about primitive people’s and their rather indelicate sensibilities.) Why were there Indian Cliff Dwellers? People hanging off cliffs as they climb down or up over caverns to their hole in the mountain homes, a child holding on to the neck of the adult. Why live like that?

We live in a state of existence fraught with peril. To some not insignificant extent a painstaking evolution of the modern state has ameliorated this part of our human condition. Enough so that you or I can live our lives as if nothing bad can happen to us or ours, but that doesn't obligate everyone at all times to live it that way. And even those of us who are innocent have to answer some times. And it may behoove us not to begin that ritual with violence. Save something for an Act II. There's always time to blow your cool later, if it becomes necessary at all.

What if this had been a case where the watcher's concerns had turned out to be warranted?

The watcher's concerns were indeed warranted: Zimmerman should have been watching himself. In the irony of ironies, Zimmerman was the true danger to the community on that night. But for Zimmerman's nonsense, Martin would have been alive the next day.

What if this had been a case where the watcher's concerns had turned out to be warranted? That happens, too, you know. Sometimes the stranger is up to no good. Would that have made a difference in the way you view the watcher's activities? How do you know ahead of time? You have to check and you have to ask.

I consider it a probability/weighted outcome thing. What are the relative probabilities that there will be a good outcome (theft thwarted, violence thwarted) vs. the probability that something like this happens and a death is created out of a dude walking down the street. And how much do you weight the protection of property? One of the (many) reasons I would never own a gun is that (for me) my property isn't worth extreme violence. If someone wants to steal my computer, I'm not going to use lethal force to stop that. I suppose lethal force is a useful deterrent against someone who is bent on killing you...but to go back to the probability scale, that seems like an extremely unlikely event.

EDIT: Not to pile on with the high fives, but Ray really seems to be on the ball with regards to Zimmerman here to the point where I'm a bit confused how could there have been such a volume of discussion about it.

That is strictly a "but for" causation claim. We can just as easily say that Martin would still be alive if he hadn't gone off the deep end. And, indeed, isn't that more in the nature of a proximate cause (assuming yadda yadda) than holding Zimmerman's legitimate exercise of his freedoms as the cause. One is a perfect legal response; the other is not.

Let's stop trying to put lipstick on the wanna be pig. He was following a kid around like a jackass with a loaded gun. I wonder how many people here wouldn't mind if the Zimmermans of the world were following their kid around with a loaded gun. This is nonsense of the highest order, and Zimmerman's actions in following the unsuspecting kid around with a loaded gun should not be defended by civilized society.

The watcher's concerns were indeed warranted: Zimmerman should have been watching himself. In the irony of ironies, Zimmerman was the true danger to the community on that night. But for Zimmerman's nonsense, Martin would have been alive the next day.

Let's make sure we spread the blame around. If it wasn't for Martin's little bro wanting Skittles, Martin would have been alive the next day.

Let's stop trying to put lipstick on the wanna be pig. He was following a kid around like a jackass with a loaded gun. I wonder how many people here wouldn't mind if the Zimmermans of the world were following their kid around with a loaded gun. This is nonsense of the highest order, and Zimmerman's actions in following the unsuspecting kid around with a loaded gun should not be defended by civilized society.

These two ways you have of looking at this is inherently at odds with each other, and you don’t reconcile the contradictions. You're like Doctor Doolittle's Pushmi-Pullyu.

He was tracking Martin with a gun. So? He was entitled by law to do that? Not only that, I don’t what would otherwise not entitle him to do that as a matter of absolute principle without regard to fact. What we feel about that justifies what? And under what terms? I may not like him doing that—but his rights were determined as a matter of public policy that then was codified as statute. So, what’s my like or dislike got to do with it that somehow makes it dispositive as policy or as a bit of cognition?

Even if you want to speak extra-legally, he's still allowed to do that. Are you saying he is legally entitled to ride around with a loaded gun, but he is somehow still wrong as a matter of some other, greater law? What law? Under what criteria? Under what philosophical regime do you come to that conclusion, a conclusion that is separate from all consideration of what actually transpired?

As I asked before, what's reprehensible about that behavior? What ultimately happened may be reprehensible, but that is to be determined as a factual matter, not as a principle concerning whether he can "ride around with a gun." His carrying the gun, by all accounts, is not what started the altercation. Are you saying it is? If not, then you're saying he is free from blame until that point where he didn't allow Martin to beat his brains out (so he says, again, assumptions, facts to be proved at trial, yadda yadda). You're continuing to assign some sort of nebulous blame based for legally validated behavior. And you’re doing it separate from the facts, strictly as a matter of principle.

You seem to be saying that he’s wrong to be riding around with a gun? Is that right? You may not like him doing that. I may not like it. But he can do it. He is allowed to do that. To hold him liable, culpable, anyway is simply inherently contradictory. The problem wasn't the riding around and the carrying of the gun--the problem was something that happened after that. Arguing from a “but for” point of view abstractly gets you nowhere. It’s irrelevant.

Is that a good reason for him to get the needle--or life imprisonment? Or 25 years for manslaughter? Neighborhood Watch doesn't like it, so let's convict. Is that the new Seinfeld crime statute--criminally stupid?

Is that a good reason for him to get the needle--or life imprisonment? Or 25 years for manslaughter? Neighborhood Watch doesn't like it, so let's convict. Is that the new Seinfeld crime statute--criminally stupid?

I personally think he should get 2-4 years for manslaughter. I don't believe his life was in danger, as his claims of having his head repeatedly slammed into the concrete are spurious. A lesser conviction on manslaughter is IMO fair and could (somewhat) satisfy both sides.

But the law is on Zimmerman's side in this case, and he will likely walk. I suppose his life is pretty much over anyways, not like he'll be able to just jaunt to the mall or whatnot.

The watcher's concerns were indeed warranted: Zimmerman should have been watching himself. In the irony of ironies, Zimmerman was the true danger to the community on that night. But for Zimmerman's nonsense, Martin would have been alive the next day.

The hilarious thing is that if Zimmerman had been up against the real hardened career criminal, that he thought he was, odds are that if one of them ended up dead, it wouldn't have been the thug. We know that an unsuspecting, unarmed high school kid managed to put up a decent fight, before Zimmerman was able to get a shot off. Take one guess how that turns out against somebody who isn't unsuspecting, unarmed, and who is used to getting into fights...

What if this had been a case where the watcher's concerns had turned out to be warranted? That happens, too, you know. Sometimes the stranger is up to no good. Would that have made a difference in the way you view the watcher's activities? How do you know ahead of time? You have to check and you have to ask.

for me, yeah it would have made a difference.

as for how you'd know ahead of time, that's why you let a uniformed police officer handle it. if anyone takes a swing at him, all bets are off.

how many NRA members drool at the thought of killing a criminal in the act? of being the guy on the network news who shot and killed the bank robber before he disappeared with the money?

well, this is the other side of that. zimmerman got it wrong. he killed a teenager.